The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-12-24
PrIma Facle once More.

To the Editor OF the Press.
Either have misunderstood you, or you
have me, in relation to Judge Whitehouse.
understood you to say (and cite from his
charge to sustain you) that Judge Wbite-
house held that the certificate was not sufic-
lent to authorize a conviction without other
proof and my point was that because he
told the jury that the certificate and other
circumstances were sufficient to authorize a
conviction you had no right to infer that he
would hold that the certificate without the
other evidence would not be sufficient to
authorize mot require conviction.
If the law is to be so construed as to re-
Quire conviction upon evidence of the pay
ment of the tax and the taking out of GER
tifcate, | do not suppose that anybody,
now that attention has been called to the
matter, excuse me, except Draco) will hold
that the law is constitutional.
Are You sue that you quote precisely
Judge Whitehouse's statement made off
from the bench? l greatly doubt that he
understood that he was making any such
statement. The grammatical construction
of it connects the part you printed ia italics
with the IF" which commences the quota
sustain your views. And if he meant by the
part you print in italics to assert absolutely
that the law was intended to compel the jury
to convict, why in the world did he mix it
in such sentence? The judge is not wont
to express himself ungrammatically, or in
such a hybrid sentence as the one in Ques-
ton is, If we take it as you understand it.
/ cannot help thinking that the reporter in
committing to writing what the judge said
failed to understand him accurately, or to
put down with precise accuracy what he
said.
From the language Judge Bonney used in
the Guppy case it would appear that he re-
garded The case as criminal one or that he
had in mind the decisions you referred to as
to evidence in civil cases Of a particular
class; but in either event it does not show
necessarily what his ruling will be when a
case indictment comes before him for trial.
In the Guppy case the question was not
whether the respondent was a common
seller, a keeper of nuisance, (the offences
named i'll the law but whether the liquors in
question We're owned by the claimant and
not intended for sale in this State in viola
ton of law. And l say frankly that the
Guppy case is of class which the Law
Court may hold to be so essentially criminal
in its nature, as TO be treated as criminal
rather than civil; but still the technical is
may have more faith in my belief
that Judge Bonney did not express his own
views of the law in the Guppy case, but
ruled as he did for the purpose Of having the
construction of the law settled by the law
court, because | knew that last winter,
while the law was pending and under dis
cussion, the Judge declared time and again,
that the proposed law statute added little, If
anything, to the law already existing. hes
itate to quote what is said by judge when
not on the bench and acting officially, but as
his statements so made have undoubtedly in
fluenced ma mind, give them.
AS to two points in my communication to
the Advertiser being overthrown, that de-
ponds. 1t is true that when wrote that, as
have already stated, / had seen only an abb
stract of Judge Whitehouse's charge, which
conveyed to my mind a different impression
from the one l gained after seing the fuller
extract in the PRESS. l have not yet seen
the whole charge; and while | admit that
the understandings OF 1t which l gathered
from the abstract is not sustained by the
part of it which have seen, / am still un-
certain as to what fair construction of the
wh0te charge ac0utd be.
1t is also true that did say that there is
no doubt as to the construction of the Stat
ute; but did not say that no doubts had
been raised as to its construction; indeed L
expressly stated the contrary, and the whole
object OF my communication as stated In the
opening paragraph was to endeavor to cor
rect the erroneous impression then prevail
ing | gave the grounds for my statement,
and you have not attempted to contradict
their correctness or their efficiency. You
did undertake to show, and did show if you
please, that doubts, and serious ones too, had
been raised; and If you choose to take my
language with absolute literalness, my state
ment was overthrown at the start, because
the doubt of a single person-even of Dra-
co--would have that effect. But if you give
my words the ordinary construction, that
there is no reasonable doubt upon the point,
believe can safely leave to yourself the
decision as to the construction which the
law should have at the hands of the law
court.
These two points as to what Judge White
house ruled, and as to whether there is
doubt as to the construction of the law, were
merely incidental to the points which l I'M
dertook to make. j. ii. ID.